Epstein Secrets

a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent”. See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp. 2d 1327, 1358-59 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (allegati

tute, as follows: (i) Allegation in Complaint. Epstein used a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense;

SHIPMAN,ROBERT ROSENBERG,STEVEN P HOLBROOK,CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN,MELISSA FALKOF

QUINN,OLIVER H LOCKER,NANCY OWEN,JANE D CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD KELLER,MICHAEL

bley, 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to caus

_______________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, (“Jane” or “Jane Doe”), by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and states as follows: 1. Defendant

tion of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Paul v. Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311, 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Sullivan v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 454 So.2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So.2

t”)’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 46), filed October 6, 2008. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 (“Plaintiff”) filed a response to the motion (DE 49) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 50). The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, respons

Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul . Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to caus

SON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and state

Twombley 127 5. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, the factual allegations establish an intentional tort claim for sexual assault and battery.3 See Paul . Holbrook, 696 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[a] battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to caus

tted willful acts of child sexual abuse on Jane Doe. These acts resulted in mental or sexual injury to Jane Doe, that caused or were likely to cause Jane Doe's mental or emotional health to be significantly impaired. 26. Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had